DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “comprising”, line 2, should be avoided in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) in paragraph [0015], on lines 2-3 of the paragraph, each of the numerical angle values should be corrected by replacing the “o” in the numbers with a degree symbol (see paragraph [0066], for example, which provides the proper angle recitations; 2) in paragraph [0020], line 10, “active” should be replaced by --activate--; and 3) paragraph [0107], the listing of reference numerals at the end of the specification should be deleted, since each of the reference numerals should appear within the detailed description of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 16, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “an angle of at least 5°”, and the claim also recites “or at least 10°”, “or at least 20°”, “or up to about 30°”, “or up to about 40°”, “or up to about 50°”, “or preferably about 26°”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
In claim 16, line 7, --a-- should apparently be inserted “sixth portion”, since the element is being newly introduced at that point of claim 16.
In claim 23, line 1, “the rest state” lacks antecedent basis. A change of dependency of claim 23 from claim 21 to claim 22 would obviate this rejection.
In claim 26, at the beginning of the claim, “The carbonation device of claim 25, when dependent from claim 18” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since claim 25 is not dependent from claim 18, either directly or indirectly. Also, in claim 26, “the protrusion”, “the transmission member”, and “the gap”, each lack antecedent basis.
In claim 27, “the pivot” and “the first arm” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, line 12, “active” should be replaced by --activate-- to correct an obvious typographical error. In claim 24, line 5, “position” should be replaced by --positioned-- to correct an obvious typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Schori et al.
Schori et al (Fig. 2; col. 4, line 1 through col. 5, line 56) disclose a carbonation device for carbonating a beverage in a container (50), a head portion (20) communicable with the mouth of the container (50), the head portion being adjustable between first and second head positions that define a carbonating position and a position in which carbonation does not occur (tilted position shown as dashed in Fig. 2), respectively. The infuser device of the apparatus includes a switch (40) that is selectively activatable to release carbon dioxide from cylinder (30), a handle (10) being operable by a user to activate the CO2 switch of the device. The reference also discloses a linkage (45) linking the head portion (20) with the CO2 switch (40) to carbonate the beverage when the head portion (20) is in the first head position (solid lines in Fig. 2), as recited by instant claim 9.
The reference clearly teaches that the head portion is tiltable by an angle of at least 5° (see head portion 20 in various positions in Fig. 2), as recited by instant claim 10.
With regard to instant claim 11, any one of the corners of the head portion (20) of Schori et al would anticipate the claimed “tab portion” that is manipulatable by a user to adjust the head portion (20) between the first and second head positions.
With regard to instant claim 17, the first head position (shown by solid lines in Fig. 2 of Schori et al) clearly illustrates the container being held in a substantially vertically upright position, thereby allowing carbonation of the beverage within the container (50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15, 18-22, 24, 25, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the handle having first and second portions defining first and second pivot points, as set forth by instant claim 12; the linkage having a piston portion and the head portion having an engagement feature engageable therewith when the head portion is in the first position and the handle is operated to allow activation of the switch, as set forth by instant claim 14; the linkage including a transmission member having a protrusion adapted to be positioned in a gap between the handle and switch to allow activation of the switch by the handle when the linkage is in the first configuration, as set forth by instant claim 18; and the carbonation device including a positional safety mechanism having a tab protruding from a foot portion of the device, and a blocking member moveable between a position wherein the handle is not operable to activate the switch and the safe position wherein the handle is operable to activate the switch, as set forth by instant claim 24.
Claims 13, 15, 19-22, 25, and 28 would be allowable based upon their respective dependence upon one of claims 12, 14, 18, and 24.
Claims 16, 23, 26, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16, 23, 26, and 27 would be allowable based upon their dependency upon an allowable claim 14, 18, and 24, as set forth in paragraph 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.S.B/8-22-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights